I was about to immediately suggest UCS-X, and then pleased that the author offers a fair comparison to UCS-X and many other alternatives. Great. Too bad UCS-X is possibly more memorable name.
I recently had a misfortune to draw every country flag with a limited palette of shapes (axis-aligned rectangle and triangle, ellipses, {a/b} regular polygons) and operations (union, subtraction). [1] It is really annoying to be as faithful as possible; you have to deal with varying aspect ratios and under- or unspecified construction methods and colors, and at some point you have to decide how to modify the flag to fit the target resolution and aspect ratio without being too different. Also you would eventually have to face the flag of Bhutan [2]... (I haven't yet drawn it.)
> Safety controls may be lost – models trained on Claude's Outputs won't have our safety measures, potentially leading to harmful or dangerous AI systems. We also have no visibility into deployment, meaning we cannot monitor how these distilled models are used or prevent misuse.
So was that why your models caused three real-world security incidents?
The dilemma is hypothetical (because we now know the exact precision requirement for those functions over all 64-bit doubles) but let's assume that we don't know that and also we happen to use decimals instead. What if, some f(x) is known to be, say, 123.4999...9997 with 1,000 fractional digits? You have to calculate at least 1,000 decimal digits of f(x) in order to correctly round, before that we only know it's between 123.4999...999 and 123.5000...001. There seems no mathematical theory that specially prevents this annoying possibility, hence the dilemma.
> CORE-MATH Mission: provide on-the-shelf high performance open-source mathematical functions with correct rounding that can be integrated into current mathematical libraries (GNU libc, Intel Math Library, AMD Libm, Newlib, OpenLibm, Musl, Apple Libm, llvm-libc, Microsoft libm, CUDA libm, ROCm)
That's beautiful. Here's the Git repo with implementation.
Common sense testing only tells about the presence of common sense, that's it. It is clear from recent events that LLMs do definitely possess some sort of intelligence even though it might have been polarized to certain domains.
All of which have been challenged though. As the stake is high, any such reason (for or against LLMs, to be fair) has to be backed with Wikipedia-level evidences at the very least.
Many influential F/OSS projects started with a small number of users (and contributors), and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Codeberg effectively says that it only welcome mature enough projects that it feels worthy to host, and that's selfish. That's not a direct problem by itself but still a good reason to get criticized.
Do yourself a favor and look at the actual HN thread [1] when Codeberg was widely discussed for the first time. It is crystal clear that Codeberg was seen as a direct alternative to GitHub at that time, and even the founder's quoted statement gave a nod to that I think?
> [...] But as developers of free software we fell into a trap – we poured invaluable source code, documentation and last not least a huge and steady stream of data about our personalities, interests and social networks into proprietary platforms. [...]
(And no one knew Codeberg had a right to determine which source code and documentation is invaluable.)
I just did, in fact I vaguely remembered it from back then, and after reading the announcement blog post and the quote, I still think that anyone who expected Codeberg to replace their private use of GitHub was fantasizing. They already stated their mission is to be a community-led forge for FOSS.
Maybe we could blame them for having lowered their ambitions around "lesser" FOSS, but then again the economics are changing.
Even looking at the comments from that thread and the Codeberg page at that time in archive.org, I don't really see much that points to it as a proper GitHub alternative, other than the editorialized (I think) post title.
Which I think might be the cause of confusion here. I suspect that there was never an official statement (or intention) of Codeberg being a full GitHub replacement, but since a lot of people recommended it as an alternative to GitHub, it started to be seen that way.
I'm happy to be proven wrong, though, as I'm quite confused about the outrage about Codeberg's decision. At least in my mind, Codeberg was already a highly opinionated forge (with the private repo ban and all), so this was not much of a surprise.
Free services owe no one, anything. If you are joining a community, be respectful.
If you're not, and you get banned, that sucks. If it causes a whole category of your peers to be banned that sucks too.
…but its a bit rich to say, oh yeah, the promises you made before LLMs were a thing didn't include a note saying “except if you spam AI generated code”.
Come on.
They dont owe anyone anything.
Certainly not for some comment from ten years ago.
This could entirely legitimately be a case of “was this decision made the right way according to their own decision making process?” … but “is it ok for then to have made this decision?”
Yes. Its fine. It’s their platform. They can do whatever they want.
The OP said the Mandela effect [1] which is definitely about the past event. Anyhow, I'm okay with Codeberg's decision (I'm not even its stakeholder, so what can I say about that anyway) but it has to be honest about the intent. If its definition of "F/OSS" has changed, do say so.
reply